Topic: DefaultTrust (DT) Network - DT1/2 Members (Read 1822 times)

Perhaps you're not seeing my point.

Suppose there is a thread with 50 pre-existing replies to it. The thread asks the question, "Where can I purchase bitcoin?". If someone states a well-known place to purchase bitcoin, what is the likelihood that it has not yet been mentioned in the other 50 replies? Not very high. So what would be the point of trying to argue that a post (regardless of the quality) contributes to the thread? It simply does not. There is no discussion.

Perhaps if the post has exceptional quality it can be justified but let's face it: those were general and vague remarks (which are probably repeated if you look at posts preceding it) are the 50+'th post.

Selection bias. Most of the users that I've tagged are in signature campaigns. Why? Because they post more. And by posting more (or feeling forced to post more, for monetary incentives) means that there's generally more spam. You're free to help me find spammers, signature or not. Send me a PM and I will take a look.

I looked at about 2 months worth of his posts around that time frame and for the most part, just see regular stuff being posted. Frankly, a lot of his stuff had a hell of a lot more value than a lot of other people I see posting. But perhaps I don't understand this whole thing. i.e. you can post whatever you want even if it's completely worthless as long as you aren't part of a sig campaign. But if you are, then we'll apply some arbitrary standard to you that will vary from person to person who has this power over you.

First off, that's an old rating.

Secondly, I'm not taking it off. Do you know why? Go ahead and look through those two-liner tiny posts after the most recent two (which are way longer than his regular posts). If you need a link, here: https://archive.is/5lkD1

If you're simply repeating what someone said 2 pages ago, what's the point? Why even bother? You're not contributing to anything. And you certainly shouldn't treat signature campaigns like a job.

---

Will it really change that much, though? Once someone is at that mark of going up a rank who's to say they'll sustain a high post quality? Furthermore, how about the currently existing members that already have enough merit to get to those numbers easily?

(Such an amount would be susceptible to merit farming, where users could collude to send each other merit. Not much, maybe 1-2.)

I would personally put the number at halfway between the thresholds. That way it's less susceptible to abuse.

Didn't know people were allowed to use Trust to rate people for their posts. Until I read this post.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/my-account-destroyed-2819050

I looked at that guys posts and I don't see this "in the case of all the spammers that I have tagged, the quality is the same: a big ol' lump of diarrhea.". All I see is just a typical user having a variety of discussions with people.

With the introduction of "Merit" system, I think there is no need for tagging spammers anymore. Campaigns will thereby implement a minimum requirement of merit points needed, apart from their respective ranks to be able to join.

Campaign managers can start with these numbers:

Rank	Required merit points to join a campaign
Jr Member	5 (There's no point accepting Jr. Members though)
Member	15
Full Member	105
Sr. Member	255
Hero Member	505
Legendary	1005

Lets us not accuse each other and stick to the topic of thread.I have openly expressed my willingness to extend full co-operation to fight spam

It seems theymos just crashed this whole discussion with the newly introduced merit system.
I'd say we wait for what the full announcement about that is.
There is the announcement thread: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/merit-new-rank-requirements-2818350

---

Discussion thread for reference:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/what-is-the-function-of-the-merit-score-2818066

Ok, giving my 2 cents here now.

Do I agree with all these spammers accounts being tagged? Yes, but not in the capacity it has become. We tried a less aggressive response with the SMAS list and it did nothing. Users were still allowed to join other campaigns from managers who didn't give a damn about SMAS list. Users themselves didn't care about being put on SMAS list or getting a neutral tag as it didn't stand out.

Now all the sudden The Pharmacist and Actmyname are made DT and boom over 1000 tags(real numbers) stand out. Now these guys care cause the tag can be seen by all and they are kicked from campaigns. We are also seeing a billion threads made against these 2 guys from users wanting feedback removed.

I can see where people have a problem with the tags as neg rep is meant to stop scammers.

So, what is or could be the solution?

Just leaving a neutral will not deter them from spamming. There needs to be a more aggressive way other then a neutral because the users just wont care. If it doesn't stand out then they're gonna keep doing it.

I see these "copper member" tags and such. Why can't we create a committee(if anyone even wants to be on it) and hand out spammer tags in that space? It's still basically SMAS but with a tag that's seen by all. This would keep their trust clean but still have a tag in top left corner of the users posts. Manager's can decide whether to allow those users in a campaign or not. Or to only allow xx amount of those users in campaigns. Hell we could also devalue those accounts a little and offer lower rates. Losing money is a big motivator to these users that are getting tagged.

Just some of my thoughts. I can be on board with whatever system is put in place. I just feel whatever is done it needs to be done across the board. EVERYONE needs to be on board. Something else that needs to be looked at is there needs to be requirements to become a campaign manager. I know it's supposed to be a freelancer thing but too many irresponsible or incompetent users doing the job now and contributing to the problem

The "best" campaign manager allows spammers in his campaigns 

I believe we should not treat a spammer and a scammer alike.I am in favour of "neutral feedback with the label "Spammer"as proposed by EcuaMobi.If spammers are given negative feedback,we will soon have dearth of signature participants.I dont mean to say,we should allow spammers but we can have some warning system in place.That said,I express my willingness to accept the unanimous decision on this and am ready to follow SMAS guidelines for all my campaigns if that helps

Using my best judgement with the information I currently have, there is no hard evidence or proof of this happening now. I have fears of it growing into this issue. If anything like that is happening now, I'd guess it's on a small scale. It seems obvious there are at least like-minded thoughts that exists with a group of DT members, but that doesn't necessarily prove a "club" exists. I'll admit part of my fears stemmed from the fact that this like-minded group appeared to be originating from one DT member, then I saw the comment about a sanctioning by "upper-level DT members", so I've been curious where this comes from and wanted to see who else may support it.


From an advertisers perspective, I assume a lot of them do not care about the post quality, it's just getting their advertisement shown as many times in as many places as possible. They know that red flagged users on this forum are not seen as trusted and carry a high chance of having their advertisement ignored or seen as a scam, so it more aggressively eliminates a piece of their audience.

Leaving neutral feedback probably will not solve anything, those managers will probably just allow the accounts with neutral because they are not going to eliminate as many viewers as a red account, and I find it unlikely that most of the campaign managers would take the time to look through to see neutral feedbacks.

Again, I can't say I'm opposed to the idea of DT tagging spammers assuming admins/mods can't handle it and need help, but I do feel like there is a higher potential for abuse and too many blurred lines on what could be considered a quality post. Some are obvious, others will be controversial
...the potential for racketeering comes to mind.



**And no, this thread was not intended to be a Lauda or The Pharmacist reputation thread.  

Sure thing. I'm not interested in derailing this thread with personal insults. But his/her/its remark needed to be addressed.

Completely happy to move the "discussion" into a thread seperately.....if Lauda wants to take on someone who's not afraid of the Legendary tag.

Expected response from Lauda: "You couldn't handle me, honey"....or some such trash.

Can you two lovebirds take this to a dedicated reputation thread?

Ohhh, we're editing back in more insults, are we? Awesome!!!!

Updated quote:


"That doesn't go well with intelligence". Would you mind explaining, from your lofty perch of arrogance, WHAT the fuck that ridiculous statement means?

You know what? Don't bother - you post enough meaningless drivel that I actually don't care. Your post history proves that. As does your lack of response when you're called out on it.

And nope, I don't want to turn the discussion to gender. That has nothing to do with it. You are well aware of this, but want to deflect from the battering you're taking at the moment in terms of your image. And trust me, it's a battering. You're looking more and more stupid with every word you type. By all means, continue, I'll just make some popcorn.

Y'know, I've met people like you before. People who think they see more deeply than others, people who think that they have some sort of intellectual advantage.

You don't.

And the irony is, you're too stupid to realise how transparent you are. We see it, and you think we don't.

Let's look at the current situation....

You, and other DT2s, are running about tagging people as scammers because they don't write stuff you want to read.

EDIT THE SECOND: Except some of the others are salvaging a little respect, by engaging in intelligent discussion and talking solutions. YOU on the other hand, have come out all guns blazing, with your little book of insults. Not very clever ones, either, but I realise that you can't see that from your perspective.

And yet, YOUR post history is nothing but concentrated hostility, aggression, and abuse. I'd say that's every bit as valid for a scammer tag.

Oh wait, you got one already, for your lovely little extortion attempt...

Yep, you're a card. I'd prefer to be a "cute leftist", than a downright scumsucker like you, Lauda. You're a bottom-feeder, and I think deep down you know it. It's what drives your aggression.

You're a cute leftist. Unfortunately, that doesn't go well with intelligence. Are you trying to turn this thread into a*insertOver100Genders* discussion?

I had to read that several times in order to believe my own eyes.

You're a fucking horrific excuse for a human being. Truly disgusting. Scum.

Remove your comment, regain a tiny bit of dignity, and I'll remove this quote. You might still be able to salvage some sort of goodwill.

Correct. Let the person that got jailed for insulting a gender-switching-degenerate^[2] tell you how this world, created by said leftist bullshit, is very nice. Idiota.

Blazed did nothing wrong. We need more active DT members rather than more dormant-pretend-heroes.

Using SMAS should be default[1] + your own blacklist (if you're that *advanced* with your campaigns).

---

[1] If you don't, you're just needlessly wasting man-hours.
[2] For those that are confused by this: I'm not calling stingers that (why would I?). Read the news every once in a while.

Not every campaign manager who happens on the forum is good at finding spammers or has the ability to hire posters who post spam free.So SMAS is one of the easiest ways they can do it.You can't tell them to not manage a campaign because they're incapable of doing so but encourage them to use SMAS list as it would help recruiting deserving posters and keep the junk away.

You dont have to, but it's an easy way to pre-select applicants and even the laziest campaigns could contribute towards fighting the problem with that.

I think SMAS has two main aspects I would suggest to carry on into any future projects attempting to solve the same/similar things.
It's a joint venture (even though the group is rather small right now), and it's easy to utilize (open SMAS thread, check if user is on collective list, done).

Thats along the lines of what I wanted to say in my first post.
Giving negative feedback for spammers forces even those campaigns that don't care about the spam problem to stop rewarding shitposters as the "no negative feedback" rule is probably the most basic rule for campaigns right now.

That's not ideal, but it's a "solution" right now. If we want to change it, we should work towards building something better.

I think that this would be mostly useless. The majority of the spam comes out of the altcoin bounty campaigns, and usually those "managers" just decide to pretty much accept everyone (without negative trust), without caring about quality. They could use SMAS, they could actually vet people, but they don't. I think that's the reason some decided to apply negative trust, as those bounties (usually) don't allow negative trusted users.

I don't really have a stance for whether spammers deserve negative trust, as I could argue easily for both, but I think leaving negative trust for managers/services who run campaigns that produce a lot of spam might be a better first step, as it encourages the managers/services to actually try.


One does not need to use SMAS lists to run a spam free/low spam campaign.